Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What Was Roy Hodgson Playing At
Friday, 10th Oct 2014 07:48

Now I have not been as big a critic as some of the England manager but last night his selection of Calum Chambers ahead of Nathaniel Coyne baffled me.

I have nothing against Calum Chambers, indeed I remain an admirer of his ability and think he will be an England player for many years to come, however it was a stranger decision to play him ahead of Nathaniel Coyne against San Marino for several reasons.

Firstly he was not in the original squad and was a last minute call up from the u21's, that being the case then surely he should mot have leapfrogged Clune to the right back spot, the original selection was for a reason, why was there a change in pecking order so to speak.

Secondly there was the tactical side of things, Chambers is a great full back, defensively he is probably better than Clune, but when it comes to going forward then the Saints man if far superior, given that we were playing San Marino and that literally you could have stuck 10 of the England side out with any Sunday league player in the country at right back and still beaten San Marino, then why the hell was Chambers in ahead of Cline.

The stats back that up with 78 percent possession and with San Marino managing only 1 shot on target, given that we were playing most of the games in their half then Coyne was the man to offer far more going forward, no disrespect to Chambers who has bags of ability and pace, but he isn't in Coyne's class when it comes to attacking down the line and that showed last night.

But the real issue for me now with Hodgson is that he has showed that he is unsure of his own selections and tactically naïve, I had previously excused him from criticism due to the fact that he was unlucky in that he finds himself in charge of an England side that has seen too many player go over the hill at this level and not a lot come through in recent year's to race them, that is not Hodgson's fault, but decisions last night are down to him and that is worrying.

The best managers know what their teams are and don't as Hodgson did last night leapfrog players in at the last minute over those in the squad, that shows lack of confidence, if Chambers had been in the original squad then fine play him, but he wasn't so should not have been in the starting line up.

I do think in a few years time England will have a good team there are some fine players coming through, including Chambers, however they have to see leadership and know the team is picked on merit where they earn the right to play rather than just queue jumped, when that happens it becomes a free for all and that is why the England team is in the state that it is at the moment, not enough of the players in their mid 20's now have matured and that is because they are laws to themselves rather than team players and Roy Hodgson showed last night he is doing nothing to change that culture.

Photo: Action Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



LostBoys added 09:03 - Oct 10
Clueless
0

ronrulesok added 09:15 - Oct 10
Totally agree. The only excuse would be Clyne is carrying an injury. Chambers was poor last night particularly in the attacking half. Clyne would have murdered their left back and created loads of chances. A real slap in the face for him. His face clearly does not fit. Lets hope Woy wakes up and gives him a agame on Sunday......
0

JDawg added 09:25 - Oct 10
I wonder what the poor lad has got to do to get a game, especially in Clune and Coyne are now in front of him as well!

I don't think Woy was ever going to play Clyne, he would have played Stone at right back had he been fit, he wasn't so Chambers came in and got the gig.
2

Jesus_02 added 09:28 - Oct 10
Clyne will play in the next one. Chambers will be allowed to get extra rst for Arsenals tricky home tie against Hull?

A cynic might say that this send Clyne a pretty direct message. If you want to continue your England career you need to move on. After Roys comments trying to force moves through at the WC. I think Im a cynic
1

paulharrison added 09:52 - Oct 10
You forgot Cline JDawg !

I agree with the article, when I saw Chambers start I at least expected Clyne to come on as a substitute.
1

perazi added 10:09 - Oct 10
Any Saints supporter who watched Chambers and Clyne last season would have NC marked as the best RB any day of the week. Good luck to Callum; his career is on a fast track trajectory, but he has a bit to prove before his elite status is confirmed - Arsenal player or not. I still see the 16 mill. pound fee as good business by SFC. In an ideal world I wish he was still at Saints, but where would he play?
0

Zambucco added 11:09 - Oct 10
I have to disagree to a certain extent, I always rated Chambers ahead of Clyne.

I wonder if you would have had the same reaction had Chambers still been a Saint?

They're both great players peaking at the same time, both under the spotlight.

I think the biggest problem that held Clyne back was the fact that Woy didn't know whether to write, Clyne Clune or Coyne on the team sheet, so opted for the easy route and put Chambers?
2

REEDYREEDOREEDZ added 12:39 - Oct 10
Clyne is a better attacking right back than Chambers and should've played. Roy is absolutely clueless in his choice of players and tactics, I don't know how he's still in charge. He obviously had no intention of playing Clyne.
England don't have a holding midfielder other than Gerrard so what does Roy do? He tries to convert glass ankles Jack Wilshere into a defensive midfielder?? What is he thinking? Wilshere knows nothing about defensive positioning. Some people would say I'm biased but apart from Gerrard there is no better English defensive midfielder than Jack Cork. He could definitely do a job for England in front of the back four. The team is crying out for that protection, obviously not against San Marino but against a decent team he is the player they need in there to allow the likes of Henderson and Wilshere to play a bit further forward where they want to be. It won't happen though because Roy only wants to start players from the 'big' teams, and wouldn't consider a player who is not a first team starter in a 'smaller' club.
Also, Rooney does very little to justify his inclusion in the England team, Raheem Sterling should play the number 10 role with Rooney as back up. There's no point in playing Rooney out of position on the wing, not when the likes of Oxlade-Chamberlain can do a better job there.
0

WestSussexSaint added 12:41 - Oct 10
Given Chambers indifferent performance last night, I think this strengthens the case for Clyne (Clune/Coyne) to play against Estonia on Sunday.
2

pintsizedsaint added 13:12 - Oct 10
Was furious with Woy last night. Why did this happen? Simples: Calum plays for Arsenal and Clyne doesn't. Woy is a clear hierarchical manager. chambers wouldn't even be in the squad if he was still a Saint. Shameful and shows the deep fault lines that are clear in the England makeup.
1

BoondockSaint added 13:43 - Oct 10
Probably the same reason Arsenal didn't start a full strength squad against us in the League Cup-don't risk you better players in a game that your secondary players should win and don't risk injury to the players that are important.
Imagine how it would affect Saints if Clyne got hurt! This site would be swamped with complaints. Because of the new set-up, England is going to qualify (famous last words?) without playing any strong teams. Let's just be happy Clyne is fit to play for the team that really needs him-the Saints!
0

Consigliere added 14:32 - Oct 10
I'm with Boondock on this one. Of course Clyne is the better player but consider the upside - he hasn't been injured playing a team notorious for their vigorous tackling. So, the right outcome for all the wrong reasons.
0

ChristchurchSaint added 18:31 - Oct 10
I agree with Boondock over the point about Nat not being injured, but why not play them for one half each. Chambers seemed at times to be lost playing as right back (especially as Arsenal bought him as a central defender), but Nat would have been much more effective used as a wing back and allowed/encouraged to go forward at every opportunity. England could almost have played with 2 at the back, and surely if we had scored 10 or more goals, that would have been a huge boost to the team.
There is , of course, the "big club" thing (4 from Arsenal, 2 from Man City, 2 from Liverpool and the others from Chelsea, Everton and Man Utd? ) - sadly as we already know, Saints players will be limited to few England caps, but at least foreign managers don't seem to have the same viewpoint as Woy.
0

IanRC added 21:52 - Oct 10
No wonder foreign teams go further than as at World Cups .....
0


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 31 bloggers

Knees-up Mother Brown #22 by wessex_exile

Watford Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024